Divinity of Jesus

quote:

---

The Lord Jesus was sacrificed not straight out of the womb with "virgin birth purity." That is a very shallow understanding of the New Testament.

---

I dont see it as shallow, nor from a lack of belief in God or anything of that nature. It would make no difference to any believer in God if they were made to understand another religion's understandings - nor would it dent their status of belief. There is another dynamic operating here. Its not like a maths problem whereby the pointing of a certain factor makes everything correct. We are in a realm where differing and genuine beliefs exist - with no impact of any relevent factors. Christianity is the greatest and most powerful religious group - and the most advanced. It's adherents are fully advanced in mental ability, and they control the world in all most important aspects - but their beief is not based on this factor; in fact it is absolutely antithesied here: chrstianity is the easiest religion to knock - I dont do this - instead, I say there is a mysterious dynamic here which clearly defies every coherence. Asking Jews to worship a divine human - when their nation was twice destroyed on its refusal - in the European peoples' midst - is nothing other than placing a death sentence on that peoples, then accusing them of being disbelievers. Jerusalem and over a million people sacrficed their lives because the refused to worship Roman emperors - please factor that in each time you make any reference to sacrifice and belief. Then sincerely ask yourself how you would act had you been a jew with 2000 years of such history and belief in your genes. Else it becomes a lie-by-omission. That every religion believes theirs the only correct path is a generic syndrome, and thus cannot be claimed by anyone. Every mother loves her child too.

quote:

---

Christ lived a life of thirty three and one half years of a sinless testimony before He was sacrificed as the Lamb of God without blemish.

---

That is what I mean by easy to knock back. Here, an arms length is needed to exemplify an appropriate metaphor. Jesus did not sacrifice himself - 1.1 million Jews sacrificed themselves - many in a manner far more amazing manner than jesus. The charge of heresy was a roman one - mimmicked later by the church - millions of innocent and rightious souls perished. In 70 CE, their blood flow reached the shoulders of the Roman horses - yet all refused to bow to the roman emperor's statue - even refusing a compromise to house the statue in the outer court of the Temple. One Akiva had his skin flayed while alive - a far more terrible death than cricifixion - he died laughing after six days. What occured at Masada was the same what occured to 140,000 remaining Jews in the temple - they died along with their families, while chanting their Passover prayers - and none can ask any more than that - not the NT, and not the Creator either.The Roman General Titus spewed himself sick at their power of belief, and refused to accept the crown of victory for the brave defense of their faith. Its not even mentioned in the NT. Without meaning to lessen christian belief - can you also see the other side of this coin? Here, christians should be hailing those jews for negating hellenism and romanism, and sustaining Monotheism - in what is the greatest defense of faith anywhere. But this is not the case, because the NT alligned its core belief on the premise Jews were bad - solely because they remained steadfast to their beliefs, and could not agree with the new NT premise. Rome was a brutal nazi like force - it appointed Roman selected secular Jews from elsewhere, did a micky mouse conversion and called them Jews, like Herod and Agrippa - just as depraved as themselves - and appointed them rulers of Judea. They did the same when they conquered Greece - eliminating any hope of that nation ever rising again, except as subserviants.There was also an existential motive for not putting blame on the Romans when writing anything - this was also seen in the writings of the roman appointed jewish scribe Josephus: he glorified Rome, but he also managed to slip in some inferring truths about what was the greatest defense of a faith in all recorded history. Here, speaking of a sacrifice of one jew - with all due respect - becomes a different perspective when cast upon the real scenario. t is made with great omissions.

quote:

---

It is more the life that He lived after being born that qualifies Him to be the spotless offering as the reality of the all the symbolic offerings of the Old Testament.

---

Spotless from who's pov - and what was done whch makes you say so? Certainly, the most pivotal factor was not confronted: Rome. You must understand the OT premise correctly, while saying how you better understand the NY premise. None are sinless - not even spiritual beings, except the creator. There is thus no example how one must behave from the NT story - all it says is sign up and your saved. The OT says laws and deeds apply - regardless of which belief one follows. Thus: LOVE THE STRANGER, and ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY: no mention of any religious alliance here? This puts all merit only on how one behaves *AFTER* one sins - no benefit if one does not or cannot sin - and the only definition of sin is vested in 613 Commandments.The one human who came closest to the core ['Presence to presence'] was Moses - he did commit a sin. King David also commited a sin. Both these spent the rest of their lives repenting - and were fully vindicated as no other: thus is a far greater feat than 'NOT SINNING'. Moses is today the most believed human; david wrote the psalms - a first person treatise between a human and the creator; thus the statute: 'WHERE A REPENTENT SINNER STANDS - THE MOST RIGHTIOUS CANNOT. All merit, forgiveness and glory is described as those relating to effort after falling - none without falling. This is validated even in the judicial courts today.I doubt jesus would condone all of the NT premises - and we have no Hebrew, contempory documents - in a space time when writings were commonplace [eg the Scrolls, dating between 300 bce to 100 ce]. You also fail to define what constitutes sin, and what constitutes sacrifice. There are millions of humans who will and do sacrifice themselves, for far lesser causes than for salvation - including christians, including others, and for such purposes of war, nation, a point of justice, for love, for fame, to save a helpless soul, for so many reasons. We've become numb to it today.

quote:

---

It is not simply because He was born of a virgin with "virgin birth purity".

​

Rather the book of Hebrews says that He learned obediance through the things which He suffered, and being perfected He became the author of eternal salvation to all those who believe.

---

This is a generic statement applying to all. Jesus was not a christian - always factor that in when you mention a book of 'HEBREWS'. He would have been totally emersed every year in Jewish observances, but not elaborated in your book. After the age of five, he would have been wearing religious jewish garb, praying in Hebrew the passover, eating matza, celebrating some 30 other Jewish festivals, and fasting twice a year after his bar mitzva at age 13. The gospels may have inferred he desicrated or flaunted the sabbath because the whole of Europe could not adhere to some of the OT laws [fact]. In any case - no one can present flaunting the sabbath law a merit. There are real, non-fictional problems with the NT which suffers credibility when seen from an arms length view. You just have to imagine how christians or muslims today would react to one over-turning a law they believe from God even today - then imagine how it would be in Judea 2000 years ago. This was a most fundamental religious time, whereby the jews were in defense mode of their faith against the depraved romans - 1000s of jews would have been not just reported to Rome, but stoned to death for non obervence in the temple precinct - and it would have nothing to do with Jesus nor could it be seen as a bad thing - in that space time. Contrast it with how many were killed by the medevial chrch on false charges of heresy?In the final count, why should one be villified for belief in the Creator - subject to which path one takes? Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

To Iamjoseph, I don't mean to impose here, and I certainly don't want to interupt your thread, so I will not address this post, at this time. Simply to say, I would like to invite you over to Autunman's new thread 'Eden 2', maybe you can do both the same time, so that when it does come up in the discussion, you can present some of these very unique perspectives, about Christianity. I would be happy to respond to some of them, free of chargeD Bertot

IAJ, I don't have a lot of time for discussion today. But I will respond to this.The question is "From whose point of view was Jesus spotless?"Above all and primarily from the point of view of the One to Whom it matters the most - to God. In the eyes of the Father to whom we are accountable, before whom we all must stand, and with whom "judgement is according to truth".You very much want always to talk about the persecution of the Jews. It seems every subject you discuss eventually gravitates towards the millions of Jews who were persecuted and died. Now that is a powerful topic to discuss.Maybe you should open up a thread discussion dedicated to that one point since you like to return to it all the time.But for the purpose of the Divinity of Jesus it is important for me to point out that many people have been martyred for various reasons. Many times for noble reasons. Jews have been "sacrificed", Cambodians have been "sacrificed". Black Africans have been "sacrificed." American White boys on the fields of the Civil War were "sacrificed". Chinese, Japanese, Vietmese, Native Americans, French, Germans, British, Spanish, and many many other peoples could all say that from thier numbers thousands or millions were "sacrificed."I do not mean to trivialize the deaths of peoples in any war or persecution. You have a point about the Jews. Others could make the same point about another nation or ethnicity.There is only one sacrifice which was looked upon by God as sufficient to atone for the sins of all mankind from the beginning of history until eternity. There is only one event of someone giving up themselves for the sake of others which has eternal consequences. That is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.He was the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world. That is the sin of the whole world. One death which can atone for the sins of everyone in human history.We are talking about a death and resurrection which are altogether in another class. This class is occupied by ONE person and one person only - Jesus. The noble deaths of millions of people (Jews or otherwise) cannot replace the eternal redemption accomplishd by the death and resurrection of this man Jesus. No other sacrifice is acceptable to God for the propitiation of the sins of the world.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

jaywill (and others):In his opening post, Jon, concluded by saying: And yet here we are with jawill summing up post #168: So much for the "non-supernatural-invoking answer."You just can't help yourselves. Your "book" and your interpretations of your "book" are absolutely correct because the "Holy Spirit" told you so, or some guy told you that the "Holy Spirit" told him to tell you ... Your God so loved the world that he eventually had to beget a son, have that son murdered by ignorant, superstitious madmen, and leave the generations of human beings after that "necessary tragedy", "a book" essentially written in "dead languages" that everyone has difficulty translating.Your superstitious certainty can only be derived from the "supernatural" aspects of your "book." Let's try to get away from the "supernatural" aspects of your "book" and look at the time in real human history - 1BC & 1AD - that your "book" focuses on. You might find it educational.All the best,
Ger

Autunman, in Jaywills defense, (not that a person of his calibur, needs it), there are comments on here by others that are bare baseless assertions, bashing the heart of Christianity, with no real support as well. I think, this may be what Jaywill is responding to. I think he simply cannot sit by and let it pass. In fairness however, both parties are guilty of this accusation and charge you have made. This is why I invited to IamJoseph, to discuss these from a historical and logical perspective, leaving the feelins at the proverbial stoop.ThanksD Bertotps Sorry for the insertions and interruptions.

bertot (& others):Objective reality is Objective reality. We who base our opinions on Objective reality have Objective reality as our proof.Those who claim that their subjective reality trumps Objective reality carry the burden of proof. Someone cannot claim that Unicorns once existed, and say to those who live in Objective reality, "prove that Unicorns never existed." Objective reality proves that Unicorns never existed and until Objective reality proves that Unicorns once did exist, we who live in Objective reality can state with considerable certainty that Unicorns never existed.Christians have to Objectively prove the Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin who was impregnated by a supreme Deity.All the best,
Ger

To the amazing Autunman, you have clearly not understood anything I have been saying , about Facts, belief, knoeledge or truth, inconjunction with the real world. We are not INITIALLY asking anyone to believe, accept, view, determine, that miracles and the supernatural are real from thier perspective. Proof for anything does not exist. One would think that you would have picked up on this by now. Most, not all of the exponents on this web-site would acknowledge this point. It is not necessary to demonstrate that something, is real, actual and factual. Maybe we can get past this rigid view of truth and facts, so we can have further discussion and not slow the progress of the others progress. Do you agree.?D Bertot

My friend, bertot: I have not clearly understood a lot of what you have been saying, because a lot of what you have been saying does not make any sense to me. The English language I have grown up using and which can be found in English dictionaries does not accept many of the word usages you have been sharing with me. Perhaps you are not asking anyone to "believe", but, the Christian religion, the Gospels and the other NT writings are not only claiming that the things said in them are "historical facts", but that anyone who does not "believe" in the divinity of Jesus Christ is damned. So your Scriptures and what you "believe" of them is being pushed on all those who do not "believe" in your Scriptures or your interpretations of them. There is objective proof that gravity and other natural laws actually exist. There is objective proof that if a mammal does not have water to drink it will die of thirst. There is objective proof that human kind is a species of human mammal. Then why is it important to call the biblical Scriptures "The Word of God" or call the biblical Scriptures "fact-based historical records"? The rigid view of "truth" and "facts" is what this thread is looking for. Supernatural this and that is not. The rigid view of "truth" and "facts" pertains to Objective reality, whereas "faith" and "belief" belong to subjective reality. How can we further a discussion regarding the assumed, perceived, suggested, touted "divinity of a historical Jesus" if we are not going to employ objective reality and the words that define it as our base of communication?Answer these questions, and I may agree.All the best,
GerEdited by autumnman, : pushed

To AM. You missed my point once again. If I am not mistaken this web-site is dedicated to the principles of people expressing thier views and opinions, supported by what they believe to be the facts. The way of doing that (methodology) is there buisness ofcourse. For example, to Jaywill he believes the scriptures are the inspired word of God and he presents arguments from its perspective. If you do not agree with him, attack the specific argument he is making from a logical, and factual process, instead of complaining about his method. Rsepond to the individual arguments themself.This why I am continuously challenging you on the other thread to make a point or come to a conclusion about something. You have alot of factual information but never come to a point or conclusion that would invite debate, what exacally is your conclusion. For example, you might say, Because I believe the Garden and the tree are myth, this would imply that SIN, good and evil must be taken in the same way. Make a point, thats how debate works.Besides all of this. It should be obvious that there is no ABSOLUTE PROOF FOR ANYTHING. How in the world, can anyone prove anything absolutley.Remember, attack the argument not the person or thier methodology.And by the way, I might remind you that you are on the BIBLE STUDY, thread.Thanks
D Bertot

bertot: I apologize that I am not presenting you with the "conclusions" you want. I am trying to debate the issues but it seems that if you are not proven correct you don't much like the outcome. Let's try the following, and see where we get. bertot:This is Jon’s BIBLE STUDY thread. In his first post this is what he says: This is the principal question Jon asks: So, answer the question without invoking a supernatural reason for the deification of Jesus.Why did Valentinus and his disciples revere the authority of Jesus as equal to or above the Hebrew Scriptures of the Jews a hundred years before the NT canon? Ptolemy, a disciple of Valentinus, goes so far as to makes the claim that the sayings of Jesus offer the only unerring way to comprehend reality. However, Irenaeus - Bishop of a Christian group in 2nd century Gaul - called Valentinus and Ptolemy, “evil interpreters of the Scriptures who have cast truth aside.” Some followers of Ptolemy eventually went so far as to say that divine Wisdom came forth in the beginning and assisted God in bringing forth the cosmos and the earth as described in Gn chapters 1 - 3.Well, we can guess who won the argument once Emperor Constantine made Christianity the Roman religion. It certainly was not Irenaeus of Gaul or his opinions that won the Roman heart. The Romans, like the Greeks before them, loved a good myth; and a myth that would insure that there is not salvation beyond the Roman church, what a wonderful gift.That is my take on the non-supernatural reasons behind Jesus’ deification: Superstition and Power, and Power and Superstition.That is my conclusion.All the best,
Ger

Now that constitues a valid argument. I just finished writing another post on your thread and I will certainly get back to this one in a while. It poses no problems or difficulties, trust me.D bertot

Quote from Jon And by HISTORICAL ASPECTS he means everything outside of the New Testament? And by REAL WORLD, he means his view and perception of the real world and all that is possible within existence itself. A loaded, unreasonable and unrealistic quetion at best. But for he sake of arument Ill follow him down his bunny trail. His assumption, as he puts it, is and should be based on something he has not exacally stated. Exacally what is being assumed and exacally what do mean by historical event. Specify. None, to the satisfaction of all people, so whats the point of the question. Watch me reword the question. What aspect of history could explain to everyones satisfaction , that all aspects of a persons life (say G Washington) atually happened as stated in history. Whats the point. Its a poorly worded question that isolated by itself, without taking into consideration all the information, tries to establish prejudice in the minds of hearers. however, if we take into consideration all the Historical information to include the NT, then you have a valid answer to a legitimate question. See how it works.AM writes So your whole argument is that because certain people disagreed about things and the nature of Christ, we can conclude that Jesus was not diety? Interesting way of debating. Im sure if we used the sources these people were using, we would see that it is same as the sources we have today. Your argument is that a certain class of people won the debate by force. I say they did not do it that way. the earliest manuscripts and the earliest Church fathers will attest to that. If not completly, they would certainly be a counterfactual hypthosis to your contention. They were aware of the diety of Jesus long before Constantine. Disagreement is not equivalent to falsifacation. The fact that they were debating it, indicates that they were well aware of the tradition and belief. There my friend is a great HISTORICAL ATTESTATION to Jon question. We can do this all day long.Arguments that equate themselves with historical events and the way history and natural events occur typically, are not a valid method of dismissing a thing completly, such as the diety of Christ. They fall short because they are a limited way of establishing facts, now or then.Thanks
D Bertot

Now, people will pooh, pooh this one away and say, Yeah, Well but!!
How about the fact that TIME itself, is now determined by Jesus Christ, BCE/AD, etc. Literally nearly the whole world recons 'time' by the man Jesus Christ, theres a pretty good Historical Aspect to testament, somewhat of his influence and possible Diety. No one says before Plato, before Confucious, etc. But ofcourse this has no real significance either , does it.D Bertot

Do you give Woden, Saturn, Thor, and Janus the same consideration?

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

[qs]Do you give Woden, Saturn, Thor, and Janus the same consideration?Your point being What, exacally?D Bertot